Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 233–271 | Cite as

Developing Negotiation Decision Support Systems that Support Mediators: A Case Study of the Family_Winner System

Article

Abstract

Negotiation Support Systems have traditionally modelled the process of negotiation. They often rely on mathematical optimisation techniques and ignore heuristics and other methods derived from practice. Our goal is to develop systems capable of decision support to help resolve a given dispute. A system we have constructed, Family_Winner, uses empirical evidence to dynamically modify initial preferences throughout the negotiation process. It sequentially allocates issues using trade-offs and compensation opportunities inherent in the dispute.

Keywords

decision support trade-offs Negotiation Support Systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acadian software (2004). http://www.winxwin.com.
  2. Bellucci, E. (2004). Developing Compensation Strategies for the Construction of Negotiation Decision Support Systems. PHD thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellucci, E., Lodder, A. R. and Zeleznikow, J. (2004). Integrating Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation and Game Theory to Develop an Online Dispute Resolution Environment. The Proceedings of 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, (ICTAI'04), 749–754Google Scholar
  4. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. (1997). Family-Negotiator: An Intelligent Decision Support System for Negotiation in Australian Family Law. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for Decision Support Systems, Lausanne, International Society for Decision Support Systems, 359–373Google Scholar
  5. Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J. (1998). A Comparative Study of Negotiation Decision Support Systems. Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, Cal, 254–262Google Scholar
  6. Bellucci E. and Zeleznikow J. (2001). Representations for decision making support in negotiation. Journal of Decision Support 10(3–4): 449–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bichler M., Kesten G. and Weinhardt C. (2003). Electronic Negotiations: Foundations, Systems, and Experiments – Introduction to the Special Issue. Group Decision and Negotiation 12: 85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black H.C. (1990) Black’s Law Dictionary. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanning, R. W. and Bui, T. X. (2000). Decision Support Systems and Internet Commerce In Shaw, M., Blanning, R., Strader T. and Whinston A. (eds.), Handbook on Electronic Commerce, 53–75, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  10. Brams S.J. and Taylor A.D. (1996). Fair Division, from Cake Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Brams S. J. and Taylor A. D. (1999). The Win–Win Solution: Guaranteeing fair Shares to Everybody. W.W Norton, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickey A. (1990). Family Law. The Law Book Company, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  13. Eidelman J. A. (1993). Software for Negotiations. Law Practice Management 19(7): 50–55Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Haughton MifflinGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, M. J. J., Hall, R. and Zeleznikow, J. (2003). A Method for Evaluating Legal Knowledge-based Systems based Upon the Context Criteria Contingency-guidelines Framework. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 274–283, Edinburgh, Scotland: ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Holsapple C. W. and Whinston A. B. (1996). Decision Support Systems – A Knowledge Based Approach. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffer D. (1996). Decision Analysis as a Mediator’s Tool. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1: 113Google Scholar
  18. Kalai, E. and Stanford, W. (1988). Finite Rationality and Interpersonal Complexity in Repeated Games, EconometricaGoogle Scholar
  19. Kersten G.E. (1997). Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations. In: Climaco J. (eds) An Overview, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Support. Springer Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolodner J. L. and Simpson R. L. (1989). The Mediator: Analysis of an Early Case-Based Problem Solver. Cognitive Science 13:507–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lodder A.R. (1999). DiaLaw – On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation (LAPS Vol. 42). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Lodder A. R. and Zeleznikow J. (2005). Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model. The Harvard Negotiation Law Review 10: 287–338Google Scholar
  23. Lomuscio A. R., Wooldridge M. and Jennings N. R. (2003). A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce. Group Decision and Negotiations 12: 31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matwin S., Szpakowicz S., Koperczak Z., Kersten G. E. and Michalowski G. (1989). NEGOPLAN: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support. IEEE Expert 4: 50–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mnookin, R., Peppet, S. R. and Tulumello, A. S. (2000). Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. The Belnap Press of Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson, M. and Waterman, D. (1985). Evaluating Civil Claims: An Expert Systems Approach to Evaluating Product Liability Cases. In Walter, C. (ed.) Computer Power and Legal Reasoning, 627–659. West Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behaviour. Academic Press IncGoogle Scholar
  28. Pruitt D. G. and Carnevale P. J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  29. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. Raiffa H., Richardson J., Metcalfe D. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  31. Robertson S., Zachary W. and Black J. (1990). Cognition, Computing and Cooperation. Ablex Publishing Cooperation, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  32. Saaty T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority, Allocation. Mac-Graw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Schultz, T., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Langer, D. and Bonnet, V. (2001). In E-Com Research Project of the University of GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. Stranieri A., Zeleznikow J., Gawler M. and Lewis B. (1999). A Hybrid – Neural Approach to the Automation of Legal Reasoning in the Discretionary Domain of Family Law in Australia. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(2–3):153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sycara K. (1993). Machine Learning for Intelligent Support of Conflict Resolution. Decision Support Systems 10:121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thiessen E. M. and McMahon J. P. (2000). Beyond Win–Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 15: 643Google Scholar
  37. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. Weigand H., De Moor A., Schoop M. and Dignum F. (2003). B2B Negotiation: The Need for a Communication Perspective. Group Decision and Negotiation 12: 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waterman D. A., Paul J. and Peterson M. (1986). Expert systems for legal decision making. Expert Systems 3(4): 212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wertheim, E., Love, A., Littlefield, L. and Peck, C. (1992). I Win: You Win, 130–135. Penguin Books, Ringwood, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  41. Yuan, Y., Rose, B. J., Archer, N. and Suarga, H. (1998). A Web-Based Negotiation Support System, EM – Electronic Markets, 8Google Scholar
  42. Zeleznikow, J. (2005). Using Toulmin Argumentation to Develop an On Line Dispute Resolution Environment. To Appear in Proceedings of Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference on the Uses of Argument, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, May 18–21Google Scholar
  43. Zeleznikow, J. and Bellucci, E. (2003). Family_Winner: Integrating Game Theory and Heuristics to Provide Negotiation Support. Proceedings of Sixteenth International Conference on Legal Knowledge Based System, 21–30. IOS Publications, Amsterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeleznikow, J., Meersman, R., Hunter, D. and van Helvoort, E. (1995). Computer Tools for Aiding Legal Negotiation, 231–251. ACIS95 – Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information SystemsVictoria UniversityMelbourne CityAustralia

Personalised recommendations